ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---Before deciding the main case, it is necessary to note, that instant civil revision was filed in the year 1995 and admitted for regular hearing on 06.12.1998, whereas the interim relief was granted on 02.08.1995, but thereafter, the petitioners did not carefully prosecute their case, and in order to provide the right of hearing, the notices were issued in the name of the petitioners, and as per the report dated 09.12.2014, the notices were served upon the real brother of the etitioners, namely, Muhammad Boota son of Bashir Ahmad who also took the responsibility to inform the others, but nobody appeared.
2. Since it is an old matter and the civil revision has been admitted for regular hearing, therefore, the same is being decided on merits.
3. This civil revision is directed against the judgments and decree dated 03.05.1995 and 18.05.1991, passed by the learned courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 31.01.1963, filed by the petitioners, was finally dismissed.
4. Shortly the facts as stated in the record are, that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for the specific performance of an agreement dated 31.01.1963, allegedly executed by the predecessors in interest of the respondents, namely, Raishman Bibi, for the sale of land measuring 09-Kanals 09- Marlas, for a consideration of Rs.3000/- out of 22-Kanals, the detail of which is given in the headnote of the plaint. It was also contended in the plaint by the petitioners, that an amount of Rs.1500/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement, whereas the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed as the proprietary rights are yet to be conferred upon deceased Raishman Bibi.
5. The suit was contested by the predecessor in interest of the respondents, namely, Raishman Bibi by filing written statement, wherein she denied the execution of any agreement in favour of the petitioners.
6. The learned trial court, out of the pleadings, framed as many as eight issues, recorded evidence of the parties, and finally, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the suit, against which an appeal was filed, which too was dismissed by the learned appellate court. Hence, this civil revision.
7. The record of the case was examined with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents from where, it is revealed, that the petitioners, filed the suit on the basis of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the predecessor in interest of the respondents, namely, Raishman Bibi and to prove the execution of the agreement to sell, the petitioners produced marginal witness who although stated, that he signed the document, but did not utter even a single word as to whether the contents of the agreement to sell were read over and made understand to the deceased Raishman Bibi, the predecessor in interest of the respondents, who was an illiterate village-lady, and further the PWs appearing on behalf of the petitioners, did not say, that the said lady executed the agreement to sell in his presence by putting her thumb impression. It is well-settled proposition of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, that in case of the illiterate or "Parda Nasheen" lady, the male member of the family will identify the lady. In this case, no such exercise was done. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ibrahim through Legal Heirs and others v. Mst. Basri through Legal Heirs and others (1998 SCMR 96) and Faiz Muhammad through Legal Representatives and others v. Mst. Khurshid Bibi (PLD 2009 Lahore 41).
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits, that in this case, only one marginal witness appeared, whereas it is the requirement of law, that to prove a document, particularly the agreement to sell, two marginal witnesses are required. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Afzal Khan, and others v. Mian Ashfaq Ahmad 2007 SCMR 1480.
9. Keeping in view the above observation and the law laid down on this point, it can safely be observed, that the petitioners have completely failed to prove the execution of the alleged agreement to sell.
10. It is also pertinent to mention here, that in this case, the petitioners are the real brothers of the predecessor in interest of the respondents, namely, Raishman Bibi (deceased) and it appears, that simply to deprive their sister from her valuable rights, the petitioners had managed all this and for this reason, he (petitioner/plaintiff) did not himself appear in the witness box. The son of the petitioner/plaintiff appeared in the witness box as attorney, who stated in his statement, that his father, the petitioner/plaintiff, is present in the courtyard and further stated, that although he is sick but not hospitalized. The afore-referred state of affairs is sufficient to show and prove, that the A petitioner/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the execution of the agreement to sell.
11. I myself carefully examined the record and the findings concurrently drawn by the learned courts below. Both the learned courts below, after careful examination and consideration of the record, reached to a conclusion, that the petitioners have failed to prove the execution of the agreement to sell, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief. I am in agreement with the findings concurrently concluded by the learned courts below and even otherwise, it is now settled proposition of law, that the concurrent findings should not be interfered in routine unless there is any serious misreading or non-reading of evidence, or the jurisdictional defect.
' I am fortified by the esteemed judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Cantonment Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCMR 1373), Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 984), and Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another (2008 SCMR 428), that the High Court, in the case of concurrent findings, normally does not interfere unless the same is result of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the learned courts below.
12. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the learned courts below. Reluctantly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.